How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST 1

[jgoebel]

I realize that this is an engineering forum, but how many of you would consider yourself a scientist?

I would think of scientist in terms of taking something that either

1 is heavily based on the recent advanced research of another and then applying this to bettering something or
2 is involved in the advanced research (with or without a particular field/goal in mind)

It seems as though most engineers are all about applying recognized common standards/ products / practices to designing the most efficient systems possible.

How many of you are really 'pushing the envelope'?

 

[mshimko]

My primary field is a "crossover" field - Materials science/engineering.

My degrees are both: chemistry and mechanical engineering.

I work primarily with engineers, but occasionally scientists (chemists & metallurgists primarily).

Which brings me to the question, "Do I consider myself a scientist"? No.

 

[btrueblood]

Sheesh. So your work is completely unscientific? You can form no logical development path for your project, define no real-world tests for your product? You must work for Microsoft then.

 

[Compositepro]

A scientist is a practitioner of the Scientific Method. It is not a title that is appointed by any institution. It can be in a job title, but that is not what makes a scientist. A scientist makes new discoveries everyday and then is usually disappointed to learn that someone else already discovered it.

An engineer uses scientific principles to solve problems. (Or drives a locomotive). There are many definitions.

Most Scientists and Engineers are a mixture of both. A few are not.

 

[NickE]

"A scientist makes new discoveries everyday "

Hah, I wish I made new discoveries everyday, heck if I got one a month reliably I would have a whole lot less to do......

(Not that I dont learn something everyday, but that rarely are any of my experiments done in a day.)

Nick
I love materials science!

 

[whyun]

Structural engineers generally don't push the envelope. Existing knowledge established the envelope and we try to stay within it.

Scientists among us attempt to stretch the envelope due to political or industrial pressure and when it is stretched, engineers are "allowed" to design flimsier structures.

Average structural engineers design structures that are unnecessarily bulky/costly. Good ones design structures that are close to the envelope, i.e. optimal.

 

[apsix]

"Average structural engineers design structures that are unnecessarily bulky/costly."
I could argue that this statement is an over-generalisation, but it's preferable to;
Below average engineers who design structures that are unnecessarily light/cheap.

 

[VSE]

Back in the Newtonian days, aren't engineers simply known as mathematicians?

Actually 1/3 of my current job title has the word "scientist" in it though I have a PhD ME under my belt. What might be a shocker to most die-hard MEs is that most of my PhD work pertains to non-traditional ME R&D subjects. Think along the lines of autonomous egoistic multi-agent system with game theory and cognitive science.

But to keep my "engineering" brain alive, I have to design parts and work on my race car. ;-)

 

[JsTyLz]

Scientist is just a old archaic way of saying engineer. All engineers are scientists, but not all scientists are engineers. Engineers have an end user, while scientists postulate and confirm, which engineers should do!

 

[rcooper]

Engineers solve problems, even where the methods used to solve the problems are not know or fully understood. Hence our use of empirical formulas and graphs. Scientist try to understand what is not understood.

Example - dowsing for water. As an engineer I would set up an experiment to demonstrate dowsing for water works and gives an accurate result say 95% of the time. Once I was suitably confident it works, I would happily use it until something happenned to disprove the fact it worked.

As an scientist I would try and find out how or why dowsing works. Once I have found out how it works, it would be possible to optimise the process.

 

[whyun]

apsix, my statement was a generalization, no doubt.

Typical run-of-the-mill engineers tend to over simplify their design and end up with conservative designs that are code compliant yet end up costing the owner more in construction costs.

It is the real good engineers that can perform more elaborate designs to end up with a code compliant structure that is lighter and uses less material resulting in direct savings to the owner in construction costs.

I agree with your statement about BELOW average engineers designing light/cheap structures that are non-code compliant.

If you can design light and cheap structures for the owner that perform AND comply with code, actually this means you are a very good engineer.

 

[KENAT]

whyun, at what point though does the extra time and effort required to deliberately design a 'barely adequate' structure end up costing more than the money saved by a few less lbs of material?

There are situations where the extra effort is justified but, at least in my mechanical/defence(even dare I say it aerospace)world they are not as often as your posts might suggest.

Also while barely adequate designs often use less material, the distribution of this material is more critical i.e. you end up with more complex shapes which in their own right can cost money.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[JsTyLz]

Agreed KENAT...
Though it would seem so, there isn't a direct correlation between piece price and amount of material. Most of the time, the simpler design will be more economic than the complicated with less material.
I think what what whyun was trying to suggest is the optimization generally pays for it self.

 

[csd72]

whyun,

less material does not necessarily mean cheaper to build. In fact in my experience it is almost the opposite.

If it is a simple concept, simple to design, it should also be simple to build therefore cheaper for the client with all costs considered.

Complicated analyses should be avoided where possible as they are prone to errors and are harder to independently check.

csd

 

[KENAT]

"Though it would seem so, there isn't a direct correlation between piece price and amount of material. Most of the time, the simpler design will be more economic than the complicated with less material."

That was part of the point I was trying to make.

In some cases the optimization pays for itself, in many I suspect it doesn't as csd72 points out.



KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[whyun]

KENAT & csd72,
That's why I used the word "optimal" in my previous post. Good engineers know how to group things (for example: use 4 pad footing types instead of 20 in 3" increments) and use less variation (for example: design using as few types of bars as possible and adjust the spacing instead of using all sizes from #3 to #11 bars).

Structural engineering is not "rocket science" or watchmaking. In this line of work, accuracy is essential but precision is not very important.

Using less material (for any design) is better but should not be compromised by special detailing that increases labor which is the other half of the total cost.

Getting back to the op, engineers tend not to push the envelope. Many design checks (for example: column interaction diagram or fastener tension-shear interaction curves) involve plotting a point outside of which the design fails. My point was that good engineers design stuff that are close to the envelope while average engineers, further away.

My comments were specific only to structural engineering and I didn't mean them to encompass all engineering.